MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220986216 · doi:10.1177/10541373221088393

Factors Associated with Complicated Grief Following a Railway Tragedy

2022· article· en· W4220986216 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Danielle Maltais, Jacques Cherblanc, Susan Cadell, Christiane Bergeron‐Leclerc, Ève Pouliot, Geneviève Fortin, Mélissa Généreux, Mathieu Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueIllness Crisis & Loss · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of WaterlooUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGriefTragedy (event)PsychologyPerceptionComplicated griefPopulationSocial psychologyEnvironmental healthApplied psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On July 6, 2013, a train with 72 crude oil tank cars derailed in the heart of Lac-Mégantic, a small municipality of 6,000 inhabitants located in Québec (Canada). This tragedy killed 47 people. Technological disasters are rarely studied in bereavement research, and train derailments even less. The goal of this article is to increase our understanding of the bereavement consequences of technological disasters. Specifically, we aim to identify the factors that lead to the experience complicated grief and distinguish from the protective factors. A representative population-based survey was conducted among 268 bereaved people, three and a half years after the train accident. Of these, 71 people (26.5%) experienced complicated grief. People with complicated grief (CG) differ significantly from those without CG in terms of psychological health, perception of physical health, alcohol use and medication, as well as social and professional relationships. Hierarchical logistic regression analysis identified four predictive factors for CG: level of exposure to the disaster, having a negative perception of the event, as well as having a paid job and low-income increase the risk of CG. The importance of having health and social practitioners pay attention to these factors of CG are discussed along with future directions for research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIllness Crisis & LossSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207